I feel like the Stoics’ argument misses the point of Epicureanism. Epicureanism doesn’t shy away from what is difficult—one of its main goals is to form an understanding of the world based on science and fact. Since I don’t know anyone who can definitively say what our purpose in life is, this seems to be as difficult and worthy a goal as any, and one the Epicureans would take pleasure from achieving.
Epicureanism takes life for what it’s worth, and doesn’t blindly assume we have some higher purpose or life after death. In the absence of this knowledge, why shouldn’t we seek as much happiness as possible in the one life we know for sure we have? Intuitively, this makes sense to me.
In terms of “life avoidance,” it seems to me that the Stoics are guiltier here. The line between stoicism and passivity is just too hard to define. Stoics are supposed to accept everything that is not in their control, but there is no clear definition as to what is in or out of one’s control. Unless someone can be a perfect judge of what is truly “in their control” one hundred percent of the time (and this seems impossible to accept), at points they are going to stop being a stoic and start being passive. And passivity has to be the surest route to “life avoidance.” Also, would a good stoic really take pleasure from overcoming adversity or achieving a difficult goal? Shouldn’t they just accept it as a “good choice” and move on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It think it's interesting that you say that passivity is life-avoidance.
ReplyDeleteFrom another perspective, isn't passivity exactly the opposite. In other words, doesn't passivity allow you to experience all aspects of life as they hit you? As soon as you decide that certain things are better or, more pleasurable in the case of the Epicureans, you are choosing some aspects of life over others. Doesn't that mean that you are avoiding those other aspects of life? When you accept that all is for the best and let yourself be hit with the tidal wave of life, how could you possibly be avoiding life?
You do a nice job differentiating the two philosophies, but you seem to avoid exploring Epicureanism as a philosophy of life-avoidance. Epicureans, for instance, clearly wish to avoid pain. They don't embrace it. Yet, pain is very much a part of life (as evidenced by how much snow I've shoveled over the last week). How are they not avoiding it? Perhaps more importantly, is there a problem with avoiding it?
ReplyDeleteA word about Stoics and passivity--I'm not sure your characterization of them as passive is fair. Remember, what sustains a Stoic, makes life worth living as it were, is the belief that what happens in life as happens for a reason. Whether what happens in life makes me feel happy or sad isn't important. The mere fact that it happened makes it sacred. Thus, my own survival in light of what life throws at me, not my own happiness, is what I concern myself with. I demonstrate that I accept the rationality of life but not giving up, no matter how it makes me feel. Not giving up doesn't sound very passive. Carpe diem doesn't sound very passive. Just some food for thought.